Laserfiche WebLink
• Demolition: The sump will be demolished and the debris sent to a permitted TSD facility for <br /> disposal. <br /> • Backfill: The excavation will be backfilled with clean soil. The soil will be compacted and a 6- <br /> inch-thick layer of concrete will be installed at the top, to prevent infiltration and match the <br /> existing floor level. <br /> 5.0 ALTERNATIVE SCREENING <br /> Three alternatives were developed in Section 4.0 to meet the objectives identified in Section 3.0 as they <br /> applied to area-specific problems and conditions. Selected criteria have been used in this section to establish the <br /> best-suited alternative for each area. The criteria chosen for the evaluation of removal action alternatives <br /> presented in this EE/CA will parallel criteria established by EPA when selecting a removal cleanup action <br /> alternative. These criteria are detailed in EPA's Draft EE/CA Guidance Document for non-time-critical <br /> removal actions (EPA, 1987). <br /> 5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA <br /> The evaluation criteria involve technical, cost, institutional, and environmental/public health <br /> considerations. The following sections will provide brief descriptions of each criterion and set guidelines to <br /> assess applicability of the criterion with the alternative. A numerical rating system is defined for each criterion <br /> to provide a semi-quantitative basis for comparing alternatives. The numerical system assigns values of 1 to 4 <br /> with a rating of 4 corresponding generally to excellent, 3 to good, 2 to fair, and 1 for poor. The specific <br /> numerical criteria used to rate the alternatives are included in the discussion below. <br /> 5.1.1 Technical Criteria <br /> The technical criteria include the effectiveness and performance and the useful life of each alternative <br /> as described below. <br /> 5.1.1.1 Effectiveness and Demonstrated Performance <br /> Aspects of removal alternatives that provide information pertaining to their technical feasibility include <br /> their demonstrated reliability and effectiveness, based on experience in previous, similar situations (similar <br /> waste type and volume). The removal alternatives were evaluated in terms of a proven track record for the <br /> technology, design flexibility,and operation and maintenance considerations. <br /> 15 <br />